If you put say, chicken or cat or octopus genes into a tomato, is it still a tomato or is it now some different species? I honestly think genetic modification of an organism changes its species, and it should be illegal to call a GMO tomato a "tomato". It should be required by law to be called a "GMO tomato".
I disagree, though it would help bolster our statistics for species extinction to be able to say we are creating more than we are killing.
tomato is Solanum lycopersicum, a form of nightshade. if you introduce genes from a cat, or octopus, it is scientifically speaking, NOT the same genus-species anymore. scientifically, how is it correct to still call it a "tomato"?
If not, tomatoes are extinct. There's no tomato on the planet who's genetics haven't been modified by man.
If they introduce genes that is not from tomatoes, it should be illegal to call it a tomato. I don't eat tomatoes unless I grow them, and I only grown heirloom tomatoes. I like my tomatoes to taste like tomatoes. Don't much care for eating spider dna in my fruit. Got no gripe against GMOs as long as they stick to the genetics of say tomatoes. For its just a faster way of cross breeding. But they have moved beyond that, and I think it should actually be illegal, unless they have huge signs up telling customers what other life form dna are in the veggies and fruits. Yet those companies that produced these engineered food crops, and the grocers don't want to tell customers what they are eating. They just want your money, the greedy bastards. For caveat emptor to be useable, you have to be told what food has in it, these days. Some people would rather keep it a secret, for you really don't matter, only money matters.
Selection is a very different process than is the insertion of genes of foreign origin into a chromosome, thus creating something brand new.
100% wrong. selectively breeding desired traits from earlier generations of tomatoes into later ones, is 100% not the same thing as inserting foreign genes. you can selectively breed cucumbers for 10,000 generations, making the youngest generation visually unlike the oldest generation, but they will still be 100% the exact same species.
I have to agree with you. "GMO tomato" is a fair label. We don't know - long term - the benefits or detriments from altering the DNA of our food sources. There are many people who will enjoy the GMO varieties, then there are those - like me - who prefer heirloom types. The world's big enough for both of us. I just think the labels should inform us clearly.
There are plenty of tomatoes that were modified by natural means, like cross breeding. This is not the same as inserting non tomato dna in a tomato. You cannot do that by cross breeding. That is what the defenders of GMOs conveniently forget. They want to lump all genetic engineering together, perhaps to try to confuse the issue. But you cannot confuse me, for I farmed for much of my early years and grew up growing all kinds of crops, a cash crop plus all of our food. But I never grew anything that you could not save the seeds from, for next years planting, when it comes to food crops. If we get to the point that no breed of seeds can be saved, but you must rely upon a corporation, this is very dangerous. Anyone who has farmed knows why. Thank god there is a heirloom seed business still around.
funny thing is, i used to be 100% against requiring GMO labeling. but that's because I saw no legit. reason behind it. the reasons I read before, were due to the unwarranted concerns that GMOs may be unhealthy. but, I now see that since a GMO tomato, or corn, or rice, is actually NOT rice or tomato or corn, scientifically and taxonomically speaking, they should be labeled "Tomato+" or "Cucumber+", etc
Generally GMO varieties are not engineered for taste. But for storage, shelf life, etc. Or appearance. The heirloom varieties actually have a much better taste, but many people have never tasted them, if your food comes from grocers. Heirlooms are also generally lower yield, and engineering also seeks to increase yield, but each time this has been done, even naturally, you lose taste. I still grow heirloom peas, save the seeds, and while the yield is lower, it actually taste like peas are supposed to taste. Few people know how they are supposed to taste these days. Same with tomatoes. Or other veggies and fruits.
As we pollute the water, create clouds of smog, cause species extinction, why not just tailor plants to suit our needs?
I raise bees. In the past decade, we've seen a lot of hive loss - categorized as CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) because the bees are visiting soybeans and corn fields that are almost 100% GMO now. It's not just a matter of altering genetics with the DNA of other plants, they actually change the DNA so the plant creates its own pesticide. That reduces the damage from insects, but it also kills beneficial pollinators, like bees. Monsanto used to deny that it killed bees but now, study of CCD hives proves it has. The other genetic modification that is worrisome to health-conscious people is making the plant resistant to broad spectrum herbicide. Have you heard of "RoundUp-Ready" crops? Once the seedlings sprout, the farmer can treat the entire field with a broad spectrum herbicide but the crop will not die. However, those little plants have absorbed that herbicide and no one's really sure veggies and fruit grown on plants that have been treated with strong herbicides is a great thing. It's great for the farmers because they get bumper crops. The jury is still out on whether it's good for you. But, it's too late. More than 95% percent of all the commercial corn and soybeans grown in the US are GMO.
*shrug* Dehydration of alcohol is a very different process than combustion of gasoline, but water is water regardless of the process you use to produce it. Man's been shaping his environment since day one. You don't like the latest tools, demonstrate the problem so we can improve the tools. But it's dishonest to try and tell people the new tomato Joe built is someone how better than the one Bill built because it was made with cruder tools. We heard that same argument when folks wanted to sell hand spun cloth instead of machined cloth, at three times the price.
The real problem here is one of labeling. It's fine with me if someone wants to sell or eat spider dna tomatoes. Maybe there are great things about spider dna. Peter Parker seems to think so. What is NOT fine is that we don't know what we're eating. So, there is no way for science to track undesirable affects of the modified food we eat. There is no opportunity for consumer choice. There is no testing such as what drug companies must follow. And, thus there is essentially no way to enforce accountability. We require drug companies to label THEIR products when they modify them. They can't modify aspirin and then just sell it as aspirin without stating what's inside. And, we require them to do testing. And, we hold them accountable when they screw up. Why are we letting the chemical companies modify our FOOD and then sell it to us without letting us know what is inside? This topic is CRAZY making. Why do we let chemical companies tamper with our FOOD like that without even TELLING US???
No such thing as a GMO tomato. Here....Straight from Monsanto... "Thanks for your question, Ana. The size of the onions and tomatoes you saw most likely happened by traditional breeding, combined with the farmer's skill and technique. Different sizes, shapes and even tastes are preferred depending on where you are in the world, and our own traditionally bred lines of vegetables and fruits feature a wide variety of sizes, shapes and tastes. You can check out some of the fruits and vegetables we’ve bred on the Balanced Meal page of the Discover site. For the record, there aren't any GMO onions or tomatoes available." http://discover.monsanto.com/conver...l-produce-i-have-seen-how-do-you-explain-this
No, I did NOT SAY THAT!!! Read my post. I said we need to have labeling. I did not say which label is better. I did not say that spider dna is bad. We need labeling, because until we know what we are eating we won't be able to identify whether specific dna changes are problematic. We've decided that chemical companies can use us as lab rats. We at least need to know which of us are in the control group.
A hard tomato only means it was picked green and early. Large commercial growers do this. The tomatoes turn red before hitting the grocery vegetable display. They have very little taste because of it. There are no GMO tomatoes.
One only has to read the definition of species to understand that gmo corn, tomato, soybean, rice, etc. are the same species, so long as they are reproductively compatible with their conventional counterparts. I see opinions being bandied about here and presented as "scientifically" or "taxonomically" supported, when in fact they are not.
As of 2012, there were no commercially available GMO tomatoes. If that has changed since then, I'd appreciate you listing them here. Hardness on the grocery story shelf is a matter of ripeness and maturity. and for everyone's edification.... https://isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/default.asp
Ron. Female Ligers are fertile while males are sterile. There is not completely functioning reproductive compatibility. It makes them an intraspecific hybrid. Quite common in nature, but rarely do they produce reproductively viable offspring.
